JJ Abrams To The DARK TOWER Came?

Ahoy, squirts! Quint here. I have a confession to make. I'm jealous as all hell of JJ Abrams right now. I'm no mover and shaker in the business, but ever since I was in middle school I've been addicted to the Dark Tower series by Stephen King and since then I wanted to see it made into a film. I think everybody has that comic book, short story, book series, magazine article, whatever, that they some day wish to be a part of realizing on the big or little screen. Dark Tower was that for me. I read through the books as a fan, then read through them thinking how I'd want to see it visualized. I even took reams of notes. Kinda pathetic I know, but in my defense I did all that work knowing full well it was impossible and treated more as an exercise in adaptation.
IGN is running a rumor that JJ Abrams is locked in to direct THE DARK TOWER series, but there's no word on whether it'll be a series of feature films or a miniseries. I'm guessing mini-series and if it is, I hope to God they don't go to ABC. There's nothing wrong with ABC, but you can't Mick Garris' THE STAND-ify THE DARK TOWER. You can't declaw that series on censored television.
To be honest, I saw this coming the second King did the big LOST visit for Entertainment Weekly and the whole article was JJ and Lindelof talking about how much they love Dark Tower and King talking about how much he loves LOST.
Nothing's confirmed yet and I hope Harry can get in touch with Abrams about it, but I'm sure he won't be able to comment.
What does this mean for Star Trek? Well, Abrams never said he was directing Star Trek for one and even if he is directing and not solely producing there is no timetable rumored for Dark Tower...
All jealousy aside, I really like Abrams. I will be very watchful of this project as Dark Tower is close to my heart, but I trust Abrams has the respect for the material.
Hopefully there'll be confirmation in a few days. If not, I have an interview in a week and a half that might be able to shed some light on the subject. Stay tuned...

... ever since "Wizard & Glass" came out. And this dream is filled with shitty "Tower" sequels, a Marvel comic book, and now a J.J. Abrams-directed "Tower" movie. I mean, that's got to be some weird fever dream, right?

Impossible to get right. Im-fucking-possible. You can't hit the tone of the books, you can't impart the plot of the books, and you can't possibly explain why the books hold the impact that they do. (Unless they're also going to make films out of Insomnia and dozens of other Tower-related books, including RE-FILMING several films that have already been made with Tower references removed (I'm looking at you, Hearts In Atlantis).) Just leave it to the comic books and make something kickass like The Regulators into a feature film.

I'm within 200 pages of completing book 7, so please be kind to those of us who aren't finished yet!!
Now, on to the topic. I don't actually think this is a good idea. There is simply too much material here, so much would have to be cut. Also, the charactors are so engrained in my mind, that I just can't imagine ANY actors doing them justice.
HOnestly, literature can stand by itself. We don't have to make it all into a movie. King is good enough, and my imagination is good enough that the books have played out like a movie in my head. That is good enough for me!

They could sum up the series in 3 long movies, for sure. "Song of Susanna" didn't have too much happen and could easily be combined with the preceding or following book, IMO. However, since so many of the books have such different settings and overall feelings about them, a miniseries on TV - say, 5 two-hour episodes - would be perfect. Go Roland!

The series could easily be done in 10 hour long episodes, easily. Considering that the first book would be do-able as a single 90 minute feature/pilot, book 2 could be condensed very easily as much of it is flashback and description. 3 and 4 have reams of extraneous material which could be cut back. I haven't read 5-7 but I'm seeing everything up till that point being done in less than 6 hours.
As a 4 hour mini-series, much would be culled but I think it could stand it.

If this gets done, and I really hope it does not, it must must must be done by HBO. Too much violence and humans being raped by demon spirits and abortions via firearms and what not for network.If you gave this project "Band of Brothers" type money and attention it could be great, but too many things have to line up for that to happen.

Although I like the thought of Peter Jackson tackling the Dark Tower series, I think that there are many others who would possibly be better suited to direct. Del Toro is another guy who would really nail it, but here's a left field choice: Clint Eastwood.
Eastwood may not be the right guy for the entire series, but what a way to start it off with the Gunslinger. Eastwood has proven his directorial chops many times over, and I feel he would really know how to bring Roland to life.

that similar style of animation as an HBO series. C'mon, the shootout in the Pharmacy, the chase through Lud...in some dark, moody, R-rated animated brutality-fest. my opinion, but truly the best way to go.

Is this the same Dark Tower series in which a few of the characters are attacked by a 100-foot-bear with a satellite dish growing from the top its head (I think it was Wastelands)? Yes, by all means: let's spend millions of dollars bringing this piece of shit to the screen.

it was going to be live action. Maybe they're thinking of going the route of "Avatar" which isn't a full live action movie. Or that the impression I got from reading about it. But I could see this as a full CG movie with kickass voice acting. HOLY HOTDOG! This news makes me really excited and kind of want to puke.

How many episodes? How would you break it up? Certainly, the show couldn't run for seven seasons... but 14 hours seems awfully short for that much plot (and yes, King-haters, there is a *ton* of plot in these books).

I won't dispute the "cop-out" argument, but I will say I don't agree with it.<br><br>
Rather, I will say that I think the ending is *very* Hollywood, what with the twists and what-have-you that's so popular these days.

You'd think after MI:3, people would have realized this.
Besides, The Dark Tower series is too fucking weird for the average moviegoer. Anyone who honestly believes that this could be a LotR-esque success needs to get real.
Didn't Roland gets his hand bitten off by a giant crab in one of the books? What the fuck is that about? Fucking nerds.

Stephen King stories rarely adapt well from paper to screen. Yet people still have faith in a King adaptation. I can count on one hand how many King stories were made into a good film. And thats being generous. I look forward to watching it if it ever gets made but I don't expect it to be worthy of the books. So if you wanna start bashing a Stephen King adaptation, you gotta go alllll the way back to Christine. I do belive this is the film that started the Stephen King curse.

I'm part way through Wolves of Calla right now and so far the series has been pretty amazing. I honestly would love to see a visual adaption of these books.... but they can't possibly get it right... there is no way. That said: does that really matter? I mean, the Bashki LOTR sucked as an adaption, but I still really like it. I'd rather it be attempted with minor gripes and changes than not attempted at all.

...is they always try to bring King's written dialogue into the screenplay, and it just won't translate. his themes and imagery are beyond perfect (at least a good portion of the time), but when they try to do things word-for-word, it feels awkward as all hell.

I agree that after Wizard and Glass it got weird, but it definitely didn't fall off the rails. And the ending he wrote took balls cuz he knew how people would feel.
God bless JJ Abrams, but this is quite a task he's taking on. Do it right; and you can't do it right on broadcast tv.

Didn't King say repeatedly to the masses he didn't want the movie(s) done?
great, another nitpicking session.
hey, this is all like begging god for our next Pope to be hung like Ron Jeremy; not worth much in the end.
i was shocked King agreed to the comics, but i think he was clear on why he didn't want a movie, HBO series or anything.
unless there was a passage in NEEDFUL THINGS about this...

Yeah, that would be the great first Fuck-you moment of the series.
Snip snip, WHERE THE FUCK IS HALF MY RIGHT HAND?
Still I'll be curious to see what they do, as usual though the King fanboys won't be happy unless every mentioned breath is on-screen. I think it could be easily cut down to a lot less than 14 hours. I can seriously see this making a 10 episode series easily. It doesn't need more than that, much of the story is taken up in descriptions and dialogue free descriptions. i.e. the Radiation mutant-zombie shootout from Wasteland could be condensed into a 5 minute sequence rather than 50 pages. Hell you could even throw in the Little sister's of Eluria and still come in under 10 hours.

it is so damn amazing. And I was JUST having a conversation about who should direct each book, and although we didn't reacha huge consensus...Guillermo Del Toro for 7, Fincher for 2, Gondry or Jonze for 4, obviousy Burton, Aronofsky, Gilliam, Chan Wook Park would all fit in as well. Of course though, Abrams didn't come up anywhere on the list. Picture Fincher doing Drawing of the Three though. So damn good. Other wishlist picks for directors and which book they'd do?

Although with how HBO has been lately, I could see it getting cancelled after season 4, and not having this series conclude would be a terrible injustice. I don't think you could take a gamble like that.

I really don't see how you could envision this taking more than 15 episodes. MAXIMUM. There simply isn't enough plot. Maybe a lot more happens in the last 3 books but the first 4 simply don't have enough plot to cover that much screen time.

The idea of doing it in under 10 is silly to me. The ENTIRE POINT to The Dark Tower is the journey. Which, could be said, is the same thing with LOST.<br><br>I really think that the smart play would be to give each book at least two hours, maybe four for book seven.<br><br>Make it a two-season series, split it with the contest on Blaine.<br><br>I think the biggest problem this series will ever have being made into film/TV is King's literal presence. In the books, it works <i>barely</i>; on TV, I don't think it will pay off -- certainly not in the same way.

The 100 foot bears with the satellites seemed silly, and the books just didn't seem to be going anywhere. King's writing is always a bit off putting for me. I loved The Stand, but Trashcan Man? Sometimes his characters go past ecentric to just plain stupid. Oh well, I would check out mini-series - maybe if it is done right I'll find out what I've been missing.

Would a film/television production be able to incorporate the characters that have been featured in live-action productions done by other companies? I'm thinking specifically of Randall and Callahan, here, who are both rather important to the story.<br><br>Okay. I need to stop. I actually have work to do tonight.

A valid point, and also, with the stuff involving King getting hit, I wonder if the guy that did it would have to agree to be in the movie. I suppose they could just change his name though. Then there's also the world trade center stuff in book 6.

The guy who hit King is dead. He died on King's birthday a few years back, actually.<br><br>The WTC stuff is the only thing about the series that actually *bothers* me -- it feels kinda cheap and it really dates the books for me. Until that point, they felt kinda timeless.

Movies would be great to see if someone was just in love with the source material. Either way, I'll have all seven of my books to look back to in the event that the movie sucks.
<br><br>
The thing that would be a shame about the movies sucking would be for those who haven't read the books. That's the reason you want these to be good! For all those people thinking back to that Ned Dameron picture of the bear and the satellite dish, a great series of movies might do a good job of dispelling any doubts. The Dark Tower is such a fucking awesome series of books. It's utterly filmable.

This is what I simply don't understand. I love all the books including the last three. Yes I know I'm in the minority but whatever. So the logic goes if the majority hate the last three books and some even hate Book 4 please explain why you would be excited to see what you hate on screen. This contradiction blows my mind.

This is utterly horrifying news. I've been dreading this coming for a long time, and now, here it is. The Dark Tower ruined, tainted for all time by an attempted filmatic version. I can see a terrible CG Oy in my minds eye and I feel like weeping. Please God let this not come to fruition.

Billions of dollars a year are sunk into projects that are little more than cash ins on the latest pop star or the latest variation on American Pie. Tons of crap gets created all the time... Now, someone finally decides that The Dark Tower books, which are amazing, are going to be adapted, money spent on them, and it's a bad thing? So what if they fuck it up? Isn't it worth the risk? What if it's actually good? Would you rather nobody try? No matter what the films/series turns out to be, does it devalue or demean the books in any way, or have any bearing on the quality of the books? NO, it doesn't. So who cares? I say let them try, and if they fail, so be it. At least someone tried.

Sure, 1999 is prominent. So are numerous other eras. What I guess I'm saying, is that for me, the mention of 9/11 really pulled me out of the story -- like King was being a little *too* precious with it, if that makes sense at all.<br><br>(SPOILER) I *REALLY* hate that King makes 9/11 a bit of a contrivance by tying it to the destruction of Black 13. I know that, in this area of his writing, he's really nailing the theme of Deus Ex Machina, but it was just a bit over-the-top for my taste, and like I said - dated (maybe not the story, but the time it was written) a little to precisely for my liking.

I'm glad you love the books, but really ... did "It" or "The Stand" ruin any of those books for you? I know "Salem's Lot" the movies, didn't detract from my earlier readings of the book. I think it would be great to see ... and I can't find that quote from Stephen King where he said he'd allow Peter Jackson to do the movies.

The way I see it, this could easily be condensed -or- expanded. There is enough dialogue and detail in King's books that you could completely revel in the imagery and the characters. Get a good production designer and accentuate the banter. Hence, I'm all for expansion. Hell, you can make a half hour scene out of Blaine The Mono alone. To make the lobstrosities truly creepy, you can dwell in that scene for ten minutes. Imagine Roland stumbling down the beach with only the sounds of his breath, the surf, and did-a-chik/dad-a-chum. Think about the way that something like 24 is paced. 24 usually isn't centered around more than one action set piece per hour. 24 gets redundant, of course, but there are so many different things that go on in The Dark Tower that you'd never be seeing the same thing twice. Someone above said a three or four season miniseries with ten hour-long episodes apiece. That sounds about right to me. Oh, and most importantly, echoing what has already been said...IF YOU ARE GOING TO TRY TO PUT THIS ON NETWORK TELEVISION, DO NOT EVEN BOTHER.

I've got no problem with the guy as an actor. But he'll turn 43 years old this summer. Eddie Dean is in his early 20s. I don't think I could even begin to buy a guy 20 years too old. On top of that, Eddie Dean is in no way shape or form an hispanic character. Why not just suggest Denzel Washington if we're throwing out names of actors that we like?

He vowed that he was retiring from writing. Then he kept writing and started to suck.
He vowed that The Stand would never be filmed. Then it was made into a miniseries and sucked.
He vowed that Kubrick fucked up The Shining at that he would fix it someday. Then he made it into a miniseries and it mostly sucked.
He vowed that the Dark Tower would never be filmed. Then . . .

Just look at the 300. It was shot completely on greenscreen. Can it truly be said to be "live action?" That aside, I hope they can salvage "Song of Susannah." Ugh. And will King play himself? That would be his ultimate Mary-Sue moment, methinks.

....I've already resigned myself to the fact that this is destined to be horrible and soul-crushing.... but since people are throwing out their ideal castings, I have a couple, and all but 1 are impossible..... If Ed Norton were at least 10 years younger, he would be perfect as Eddie. When I watched Batman Begins I actually thought to myself that if Christain Bale were at least 15 years older, he might make a damn good Roland. (Quite a compliment, as those are some mighty big, iconic boots to fill.) And as for Susannah? How about the girl who was in 28 Days Later?

...but this is potentially very good news--should we go so far as to say this is KA; or will someone out there make a kindergarten joke? As far as casting goes (and damn but it's fun to do that): I'm gonna surprise you all and suggest, for Roland, Kris Kristofferson. Jackman would be a great SECOND choice; but there's no way he fits the long, tall and ugly description...even under makeup, he doesn't come off weathered enough. Kris could OWN the role. Eddie--I'd go with Nick Stahl (Carnivale, Sin City); Detta/Susannah--while I love Halle Berry, I'd offer this part to Rosario Dawson, who can go from sexy to scary in a half-second! And I challenge anyone out there to suggest a better Randall Flagg than Clancy Brown! I think Abrams could do fine with this; though I'd cream my jeans to see Jackson do it, I'm guessing after LOTR, he wouldn't touch it...give Abrams a well-written script (any of the Carnivale or Deadwood scribes could work wonders, I'm thinkin'), and say thankya!

Hugh Jackman is way too young and man-pretty to play Roland. There should be a reason Eddie calls him 'Long, Tall, and Ugly.'
Personally I've always thought animation would be the best way to go for Dark Tower.
And why haven't we heard anything new about The Talisman?? Who should play Jack? What about Wolf? Sloat?

I am a huge fan of King's Dark Tower books. I own a coveted 1st Edition 1st Printing of THE GUNSLINGER; even have the original Fantasy and Science Fiction Magazine issues that first published THE GUNSLINGER chapters between 1978 and 1981. I own 1st Editions of every book in the series and have read them all. Let me clear a few things up now, get my head clear and clear the air. The ONLY actor on the planet capable and worthy of playing Roland is Christian Bale. Nobody else has the elbow grease or dedication necessary. If these deuchebags can't get Bale, they might as well drop the whole thing. If The Dark Tower goes to TV it'll fucking suck. These books are filled with vulgarities, gore and blood, insanely twisted creatures and scary shit that makes the Pimple-Shaman in MANITOU look like Minnie Mouse. And it is ALL ESSENTIAL to the story. Can't be left out. The big screen is the only place for this series. That being said, there is another problem. It'll cost about a billion dollars to film. It's possible it could be done in as little as 4 films, but in order to capture the vastness of Mid-World it'll all need to be filmed digitally. Abrams doesn't have the experience or balls to pull this one off. I mean, MI3 was fucking dope and all, and LOST is kinda cool for a TV show, but he's not ready. He'll screw it all up. Darabont is aight, but not nearly bad-ass enough to get anywhere near this shit. He'll turn it into some sappy (yet beautiful) sob story. You want a kick ass adaptation of THE DRAWING OF THE THREE give this motherfucker to Tarantino and Rodriguez. Give it to Darren Aronofsky or Peter Jackson. To be honest I think Steve's little jogging accident really jostled his brain. I mean, am I the only one who thinks LOST is kinda lame? For fuck's sake, people! Let's hope it's all a big rumor. If it's not a rumor, I'd like to know one thing: If Stanley Kubrick were alive, would Stephen have had the brains to tap him before JJA? I think so. Remember THE SHINING? That was a King adaptation. Abrams is no Kubrick...we all know that.

Shaky cam with mostly close-ups and medium shots, with a only few inches depth of field.. MI:3 gave me a headache in theaters. Abrams should stay in television, cause he hasn't learned how to shoot for the big screen.

Ever sincce I saw Joseph Lyle Taylor I always wanted him as Eddie. I love JJ Abrams, and as long as The Dark Tower can be made in an uncensored environment (be it HBO, Showtime, or film) I have no doubt he will do an exceptional job with it. All you naysayers better consider getting on board on this or you'll be blaming yourself when The Dark Tower ends up getting made by some hack like Pitof, or King gets cold feet and hands it over to Mick Marris for a very special ABC televisonion mini-series event "The Complete Dark Tower, condensed into four exciting hours with limited commercial interruption. Starring: Corin Nemec as Eddie Dean" Also, I know it would never happen, but it would be perfectly fine with me if Keifer Sutherland were cast as the Gunslinger. I'm not sure, maybe Hugh Jackman could be right for the role, I could never help but think of a young Clint Eastwood whenever I saw him on screen. If they somehow got Clint Eastwood to play Cort, I think I would fucking die of happy poisoning.

...I'm sorry, I just don't think he's physically imposing enough to play Roland. His features are little too soft as well, in my opinion..... And hey, Zeke, you know who would be the absolute best Susannah? Better than either Naomie Harris or Rosario Dawson? If JJ Abrams could somehow build a time machine and cast Angela Bassett from 20 years ago.

This might be a death sentence writing this but thats it. I love those anime shorts in Kill Bill Vol. 2. I don't know who did em' but if you could find the right people it could be done. I think CG is the way to go, take a look a Final Fantasy, take a look at the polar express for christs sake. That was a couple years ago I could imagine what they could do with these books.

Don't let your personal hate get in the way of the right medium for the job. It's the only one that could get away with most of the stuff in those books without being censored. Unless you think *any* US live action series will happily show a woman with no legs being raped by a demon. And that's one of the more tame things that happen.

...and I'll say it again. Jim Caviezel IS Roland. Actually, JJ Abrams and The Dark Tower series is a good match...both start their series off with a bang (ala Alias, Lost), then get bogged down in the end. Marriage made in Heaven, I'd say...

I don't know why people keep casting Susannah ... the choice is already made for you. Thandie Newton. She's just the right mix of fucking insane, pretty, and wiry for those times she'll be gunslinging away or slinging those plates.
<br><br>
If you want something difficult to work on ... try Jake. How old is he in the books? Or the artist ... which by the way, was a sad way to treat that little kid from Insomnia, Mr. King.

... He said, in the introduction to the "Complete & Uncut" THE STAND that he thought it should never be filmed, because it would replace the reader's mental images of the characters, and he thought that should remain in the realm of his readers' imaginations. And the first opportunity he got, a STAND miniseries.

Why not do it as a regular series? There's enough material to cover five or six seasons. There's the problem of Jake aging if they filmed it over that many years, but if they found a Gary Coleman type maybe they could get around that.

No, I'm serious. I don't even like Dane Cook and I think he's perfect. Also, David Carradine as Jonas and Paul Newman as the old priest from Salem's Lot. And they better not give Flagg a mullet this time.

Never would have guessed we'd be talking bout DT to film so soon. And just a week after the first comic hit too! It seems impossible to be done right, but at least we might see what they come up with way sooner than I thought. And to whoever was wondering, King was quoted in one of the most recent Entertainment Weekly magazines as saying he would let the DT be adapted by the right people. He said if Peter Jackson wanted to do it, he'd be all for it right now. He said until the right people are attached, it won't be done. Of course that doesn't mean shit to me after so many horrible adaptations of his stuff to film.

...If only he were about 20 years younger (think Heartbreak Ridge era), he would be perfect. And as for length, they should definitely not trim it down, In fact, they should expand it. There is so much back story to the DT books that are only briefly touched upon that I would love to see on the screen (I'm talking about Roland's early years up to the fall of Gilead, which includes much of the material in Wizard ang Glass). I think they should film it chronologically, building up to the quest for the tower. If they cut the back story out entirely or show it only in flashbacks then that would really do the story an injustice. Of course they could trim the DT books - you can trim anything. But to do that would be seriously missing the point. It is meant to be epic - perhaps the most epic journey ever. And as someone said above, the situations the characters find themselves in are so varied and imaginative that it would never feel repetitive. Last point - they should definitely re-work the whole "Stephen King as the centre of the universe" sub-plot.

...and what is he trying to prove? Seriously, man, are you really going to try and swipe a user handle I've had for ages by eliminating the space between the words? This development has me too ticked to even comment on the interesting news at hand. Some folks simply have no souls.

how are they going to handle Jake if they do this live action? I mean he doesn't age all that much through the entire series. And if they're thinking of a television series then it's going to take years to complete the filming.

...I'm not going to get huffy because I don't really care *that* much. But I think it would be a classy thing to do if you simply thought up a different user handle. This shouldn't be too much of a hardship, since you're new and haven't posted much under your current name. It just seems like the right thing to do. Thanks, bud. (To borrow a phrase from Vern.)....... (Pssst! Are there any AICN staffers reading this? Shouldn't you guys be preventing stuff like this from happening?)

.... that if Childe Roland was indignant in his immediate response to you, it was probably because he assumed that you were legitimately trying to impersonate him. That's actually not an uncommon occurance, where people deliberately do that--and I could understand anyone being angry if they thought that's what was happening. Now, granted, your near-identical handle seems to have been an honest mistake--but still, it would probably be of no benefit to anyone to drag this out any longer.

...the fact that you are new here is no secret. But the fact that you posted in talkbacks under a name that previously appeared in those same talkbacks (see the Shyamalan talkback, where you basically reiterated the point of my post, to boot) indicates that you're either 1.) a complete derivative with nothing original to contribute or 2.) don't bother to read other posts in a talkback before posting your own "thoughts," which makes you one of the more obnoxious sorts of talkbackers anyway. Either way, it's to your clear advantage to drop the bullshit and start over with a clean slate under a new name. Consider it a talkbacker protection program, of sorts. If the only thing stopping you from taking advantage of this generous offer is some childish need to be asked nicely not to be an idiot, I have no problem doing that. Pretty please. With sugar on top. Stop being a fucking idiot.

... do you think there's any chance in hell that King might possibly permit this adaptation to drastically alter (in pretty much every way) the events covered in the last 3 books. For me personally, that would be totally necessary for this to "work." If they plan on going into this thing with the intention of being totally faithful to the final events in the series--well, that would be like leaving the starting gate with a horse who already has a broken leg. (Okay, that was a terrible, awkward analogy.)

...for Roland. That's why he was so perfect for Memento. Every time you looked at him, you could see him as though he were seeing things for the first time. There's an innocence to those eyes that just wouldn't work for Roland. Jackman's actually got a similar problem, which is why he's always kind of bugged me as the aged and experienced Wolverine. Clint's eyes are perfect, but he's just too old now. I can't stand Russel Crowe, but if he could drop some weight I could see him pulling off the part. He's got the far-seeing stare, the single-minded determination and the beautiful but terrible lack of complexity in most of his better characters to date. I could even see a dirtied up Brad Pitt pulling off Roland. Think of actors with hawk's eyes. You need someone who appears to be staring straight through you as though you barely exist or are, at worst, and obstacle on his path or, at best, a means to an end.

...check out Christian Bale in Batman Begins. He's got the squinty stare. He has that cold distant demeaner. He's tall and wiry. Honestly, the only thing keeping him from being the perfect Roland (for me) is the fact that he's too young. But that's something easily remedied, assuming the producers of this endeaver have access to a time machine.

Honestly, they could cover up some of his age with makeup/CG if they wanted to, and he gets really old as the series progresses, anyway. Get a stunt double in there for the action scenes and Eastwood would be freaking perfect, I can't believe you guys actually want anyone else. One of the things I love about Roland is that he seems so old, tired and frail, yet at the drop of a hat, he can still inexplicably turn into the toughest fucking badass you'll ever meet. No one can pull that off believably as well as Eastwood, *especially* because of his age.

...but he'd need to harden up the set of his jaw and squint a bit. I think Bale's got the squint down, jollysleeve, but, even with makeup and a dye job, I just don't think Roland when I envision his face. Plus, it'd be kind of distracting to keep thinking about Batman while ROland was on screen. There's virtually no chance I'll be thinking of Jesus if it's Caviezel up there, though. Even during The Passion, I kept thinking about how unrealistic the whole thing was because Jesus was too pale.

...would be a major mistake. (No offence to those that are in love with the idea.) Age issues aside (he really is too old) I think they would do best to cast someone who could "disappear" into the role. We would never be able to watch Eastwood on screen and think of him as anyone other than Clint Eastwood. ..... Also, Eastwood is already so engrained in our collective minds as the archetypal "gunslinger" character, that to literally cast him as Roland (who for me, is really the *ultimate* gunslinger) would come off as self-parodying. It would be like if you were making a movie with a bad-ass cyborg character. And you wanted the audience to take the character seriously, and also totally believe that this character really exists, and isn't just some hollywood entity. The last thing you'd want to do is cast Arnold Schwarzenegger.

If JJ is involved I really believe this will go to ABC. The fans scream HBO, because they think all the hardcore shit must be filmed, but I remember when the Stand came out, I thought it was pretty decent, definitely the best Mick Garris/King adaptation ever made, and the Stand has plenty of King crap that is f-ed up. You could do a "version" of Dark Tower, it wouldn't be THE Dark Tower, but c'mon, nothing ever would be, so why complain. I don't care if they chop it up or abridge it a bit, I think it is more important they get the sense and attitude right, and that comes down to casting. Go with relative unknowns, please don't use a bevy of washed up TV losers for your program. And so in closing, my only fear with ABC getting a hold of this property would be casting like Corbin Bernson as Cort, or Aidan Quin as the Gunslinger, crap like that WOULD ruin it.

Firstly, HBO! HBfuckinO!! It's the ONLY way. Theatrical movies would be pointless, the books would be destroyed, this is so incompatible for movies. Also, if it was on a network like ABC you would have to cut so much due to content and the whole thing would be pussified. It needs 3-4 HBO seasons, preferrably 5. Season 1 would be the first two books (The Gunslinger, The Drawing Of The Three). The first episode would be the first chapter where Roland tells that Brown guy what happened in Tull (I won't spoil it but it includes scenes that could only be on HBO), then the next episode would be him meeting Jake at the Way Station and their journey to the mountains, maybe we'd get the first flashback to Roland's youth here. The third episode would be the minecart journey and the slow mutants, also we would get the big Gilead flashback here (as seen in the first issue of the Marvel Dark Tower comic). Episode 4 would be Roland 'losing' Jake and his final palavar with Walter. So that's the first book done in just four episodes with book 2 to be covered easily in the remaining 9. Season 2 would be the whole of book 3 (The Wastelands) and some of book 4 (Wizard and Glass). Season 3 would be the big Mejis portion of book 4 and leading into book 5 (Wolves of the Calla). Season 4 would be the end of that and the whole of Song of Susannah. Season 5 would be book 7 (The Dark Tower) and could include any extra material that may be needed. By the way...YOU CAN SAY 'FUCK' ON HBO!!!!

I see what you mean, and when you put it like that, I kind of agree, lol. But for me, I really think ultimately the character ought to be played by someone who actually is old, regardless of who it is. That would be really cool, to me. I like that Roland is so old that you can't help but be astounded that he's still able to carry on and do the things he does, and that's an aspect of the character that I don't think I'd be able to buy coming from anyone but a similarly strong, older actor.

I think at some point Clint Eastwood is even directly mentioned as a comparison to Roland. (Most likely, this happened in Drawing of the Three.) However, I don't think that literally means that Clint should be cast as Roland. Or even that Stephen King himself necessarily thinks Clint should be cast as Roland. Even though King directly references Eastwood as a Roland comparison, I don't think that necessarily means King feels he would be the only/best choice to play him. I think he simply made the Eastwood comparisons because he knew that for most readers, the Eastwood gunslinger persona is the most well-known representation of this type of character...... As I touched on in my previous entry, I feel that Clint has too much "baggage" associated with him for the audience to totally "buy" him as this distinct character. If Clint were playing Roland, I think most people would think of Roland as just another one of Clint Eastwood's gunslinger characters.

They should do this on HBO, have be two seasons of 13 episodes per season (like Sopranos) and include all the back stories (Little Sisters of Eluria and the comic book) and show it in chronilogical order. Start with Roland in Gilead as a child and go from there. They sould also play out as the story after the ending of book seven (he keeps the horn from the battle of Jericho Hill) that way they can make a few changes that could be attributed to it being another timeline and things could be alittle different.
Also have Clint Eastwood play Roland's father and possibly Heath Ledger to play a young Roland. Thandie Newton is a great choice for Detta/Susanah. Ithink Kris Kristopherson would be a good Flagg/Martin.

First: "Give it up before it begins. You don't want to become a hobby of mine." Fuck off you douche. You already have one too many hobbies, most of which center on being the resident expert know-it-all around here. Second: ChildeRoland, you should heed his warning, because as he knows everything about everything, he is no doubt an expert digital fister. Don't believe me? Just smell one of his posts....smells like shit. FOAD Childe Roland. As for the DT series coming to TV or film, it's just too hard a task with something as esoteric as it is. Too many people have too many preconceived ideas about the series for a big enough number to be happy with anything put to screen. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go tape my ass up so Childe Roland can't make a hobby of it...

...seems like I left quite an impression on you at some point. Odd that I really don't remember you at all. Maybe it's because your posts read like so many others? Full of sound and fury but signifying nothing? Oh well. You're right about one thing...if you toddle off back into obscurity I'm less likely to ride your ass for fun.

Except it should definitely start with a prologue of Roland in the desert following the man in black. Then when he meets Brown, Roland can tell him not only the story of Tull, but his story from the beginning. So from there we could have an episode on Roland's early years (up to the hanging of the chef), another on his coming of age, two episodes to cover the flashback events in Wizard and Glass, and one more to cover the fall of Gilead, Jericho Hill and the start of Roland's quest. Then we have an episode in Tull, and then we are back in the present. Episode 6 should cover the events of the gunsliger up until the mountains, then episode 7 would cover the slow mutants and the palaver with the man in black. That's as far as I've worked it out, but just from that I guess that you would need about a full season (20-24 episodes) to tell the story right (or two 12 episode seasons).

would be a great choice, if you have seen the Proposition then you have already seen a great Roland on the screen.
They could do this one of two ways....
Someone suggested doing it chronologically. That would be pretty good, but would HBO want to jump back into another western for at least for a season (Song of Susannah)? I can't see this way if it's actually motion pictures.
Or you could stick directly to the books except you take out Book 4 altogether... It really is a prequel and if it were made into movies you could make it after the other films if it were a success. (Like the Hobbit, right New Line?)
Oh and take out any Stephen King references... Books 5-7 are going to be a pain in the ass to adapt. Sneetches for chrissakes.
And may Oy continue to eat.

I was just thinking about Wolves of the Calla, and they've got Dr. Doom, lightsabers, and as Unlabled mentioned, sneetches (the Harry Potter models)...hopefully there's no trademark issues with Nozz-a-la Cola.

...might King not run into trouble trying to use the characters that appear in this story from other stories that have been licensed to different companies (thinking of Salem's Lot, Hearts in Atlantis and The Stand, specifically, but there may be more I'm overlooking). It would be like trying to get the X-Men and Spidey together in a movie nowadays. Characters having the same creator and being integral to a larger, crossover story doesn't necessarily matter to the people sitting on the rights.

You're right! My posts ARE full of sound and fury, and really don't say much. It's just as pointless as expounding ad nauseam on everything and anything in here as you do. This place is a digital outhouse, and there really is no point to actual discourse on the internet. What posts I make might be worthless, I do find some measure of fun in being an ass here, but you come off as the Burger King. Big headed, and creepily present everywhere. Your threat of riding my ass truly terrifies me, your majesty. Might I plea that you spare me your royal rod? Go fuck your inflated self worth, Burger King Roland. As for the series, again, no majority will be happy with everything should it make it to the screen. I would rather continue to envision things as I read than to be stuck thinking of the on-screen adaptation...I'm off to the Barbie comic thread to see if Childe Roland is holding court there.

...that, if you come here largely to be an ass and not talk with genuine interest about the things many of us enjoy actually talking with each other about, your time might be better spent in therapy sorting out the inferiority issues you clearly try to hide behind failed attempts at Internet bravado? Or you could keep biting at my ankle and waiting for the kick. It doesn't take much effort on my part and it doesn't really distract much from the real conversations going on.

I think one of the reasons King wrote the books with flashbacks is because by the time we learned how Roland became a gunslinger, by the time we learned of his backstory in Wizard and Glass, we knew that Roland was a fucking psycho. The story would not have been half as affecting had we not known that Roland was fucking psychotic before seeing his childhood.
<br><br>
Does that make sense to everyone?
<br><br>
It's the whole reason that sitting down for that long, strange campfire story is important in the book ... is that after three books worth of these characters (and us) trying to crack the hard-ass that is before us, Roland finally gives a little. He loosens up enough to display some of his humanity. He finally puts his ghosts to rest so that he can accept his new companions as ka-tet.
<br><br>
I'm pretty passionate about this aspect of the story. I don't think much else could totally screwed up, but telling The Dark Tower is straight, chronological order, is a bad idea. The Dark Tower series is like a rose, in itself, many layers, many opposing stories like petals that unfold. Roland needs to be kept cold and mechanical at first, before we see the way he became that person. Knowing that he is a psycho later on also helps us feel a tremendous amount of sympathy for him when he (SPOILERS)
<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>loses his first love. In that moment, it refocuses and reenergizes everything that we already knew about the man.

...which should be feasible if Warners holds the rights to both. And I've got to agtree with Unlabeled on Hanks. He's another guy on another job and should stay there. Casting Roland is going to be tricky as hell and could well be the lynchpin that keeps the wheels from coming off.

...at least, I'm assuming he did when we heard the story a couple years back about the Supes/Bats movie from him. But I'd better stay on topic - I might go on for days about Superhero movies that coulda or shoulda been...

But there are definite parts of the book where Roland himself questions his own sanity, and the (SPOILERS) <br><br>
fact that he is willing to disperse the people who matter most to him for the tower. He is obsessive, for sure, but help me remember ... I know there's parts in the last books where he feels like his mind is snapping along with the universe that he's a part of. I think he even references the time when Walter showed him the universe in those hallucinatory dreams, and I think he even speaks of how his tremendous age has helped to twist and distort his own perception of reality, etc. The fact that he's in a loop is probably even more of a factor, with instincts and feelings from other "attempts" creeping into his journey.

Unless this has already been discussed and I missed it. Just look at House. Make House a gunslinger with a more somber tone, and you've got Roland. Makes sense to me. But then what do I know?
I still say the whole prospect is a bad idea.

I think that's a harsh diagnosis. Sure, there are times when he questions his own sanity, but most of that comes after the splintering of his personal timestream memories when he drops Jake (and that seems to get resolved in his head around the time they pull Jake through the door to Monster House). He's definitely driven to the point of obsessive compulsion (and his ritualistic behaviors would support that interpretation). And he may suffer from a mild form of autism that makes it difficult to relate to people on an emotional level. But the fact that he kills in the name of what he perceives to be a greater good makes him no more or less of a psycho than any of the warrior heroes of mythology or history. He knows the difference between right and wrong and follows a code of conduct with few exceptions (those being mostly in the interest of what he perceives to be the greatest good...the gaining of the Tower and the saving of the multiverse).

No prob, Pusher. Casting what is probably the most iconic character in all of Stephen King's literary career is a big weight!
<br><br>
For me, Hugh Laurie looks like he would get his ass kicked. I don't mean to have some bulky Roland, but there definitely needs to be some visual strength cues. He gets in quite a few hand-to-hand tussels.
<br><br>
That said, I wish Daniel Craig was a little taller, leaner ... he seems like he could pull off that thousand yard stare pretty marvelously.

SPOILERS (for both of you that have not read the books) - are you thinking of Waste Lands (3rd book) where he feels that his mind is splitting because he's trying to reconcile Jake being alive in one world and dead in another? Yeah, he came pretty close to losing it there, but that was some pretty heavy stuff to deal with. He straightened out pretty quick after Jake was pulled from the monster house in his world. I think Waste Lands is where his grip on sanity is the most tenuous.

(SPOILERS) Thankee Sais! That was the section I was thinking of, and I think since I read a lot of the books through the eyes of Eddie, I kind of made some inferences along the way.
<br><br>
Eddie treats Roland like the father he didn't have. He even gets jealous of the dude, fights against him, but ultimately loves him. I can remember scenes where Eddie severely questions Roland's sanity ... and I think that kind of bent my perception of the guy.

...at least half the time, but he was also surprised by the method to the apparent madness more than once. And you have to remember Eddie's judgment got kind of cloudy after Odetta/Detta/Susannah came on the scene. He was thinking very much with his heart and reading, I think, more into his relationship with Roland than Roland gave it credit for (Roland seemed partial to Jake as a son figure and saw Eddie more as a project, then a friend and, finally, an ally -- he was proud of Eddie like a father or a teacher, but he didn't necessarily love him like a son). Eddie and Roland were just wired differently. Eddie was a little more left of center when it came to other people's rights and the sanctity of life.

I started thinking about him, too ... doesn't click, though. I think I keep thinking of him as Aragorn. He was pretty cold in History of Violence, but his face doesn't ring true for me. Too round of a face, maybe ... or maybe it's just when I think of him, I can't get that "I'm Aragorn, come to help the little hobbits" grin out of my mind.

...that throws me. It's too nasal and sweet sounding. I don't hear Roland talking like that. Again, I default to Clint for the voice (it really is a shame that bastard had to go and get old and hoarse). He speaks softly because people will listen. He doesn't have to raise his voice and, if/when he does, you know you're in some shit. Actually, Pusher's Hugh Laurie suggestion has been growing on me. I think his build is deceptive, just like Roland's. Thin but wiry. Facially, he'd be close to perfect if he could keep from mugging. Kind of running into an issue with his voice (the one he does for House is kind of nasal and a bit too emotive), but when you consider that he is DOING a voice for all of those House eppys, it kind of hints that he might have the range/capability to do something different. Strangely enough, so far he's my favorite suggestion.

That's how I always read Cort, that deep gravelly voice, he sort of cares, but not really, at his heart he's a cold blooded bastard. As for Susannah, I really think Vivica Fox could nail that character, because when she is the Odetta/Detta bitch, she get's really sweet and really nasty. As Susannah Vivica is the perfect blend of sexy vixen, hardass bitch, and caring mother. Eddie's tough though, gotta have that NY accent and attitude. What about Father Callahan, I could see Farmer Hoggit (what's his name, he's doing 24 right now) and didn't he play Callahan in the TNT Salem's Lot series.

It's JJ, you know he's going to put him in there somewhere. Greg strikes me as too cynical and goofy to play any character in Mid-World, it would have to be when the Gunslingers are in our world. Perhaps JJ would save him for ... wait for it... Stephen King HIMSELF. Put some heavy coke bottle glasses on him, give him a nasty looking mullet, he could at least give a King presence, he wouldn't look anything like him, but you would get the idea. I doubt King would play himself when they go back to 1977, they could just give Grunberg a big bear like beard, to cover up all his baby chub.

Actually, I do see him working as the nut who grabs Jake in book 3... This will suck as a television show though. It should be shot in IMAX. And didn't Abrahms already prove he couldn't write heroic fantasy stuff with the crappy Superman script that was written about so much? It sounded god-awful. A series of movies wouldn't be bad though. Even one would be better than a TV show. Being so interconnected with the rest of King's books would naturally mean a lot of the plot would have to be narrowed down to the bare essentials anyhow. Basically leaving in everything essential with Roland and his Ka tet. Even a lot of stuff in the later books wouldn't be so bad if you cut a lot of the junk out of it. But fuck it if it's going to be cartoony bullshit, like an escaped 80's movie. There has to be a baseline of reality in the thing, and the characters have to be taken seriously for it to work, because they're pretty great characters as far as this sort of thing goes.

I've always visualized Viggo in the role for some reason. A lot of people say he's too young or too good looking, but I think he's damn perfect. I saw above someone mentioned Daniel Craig and that's one I haven't considered, though I believe he'd be pretty good too. He's definately got the eyes for it.

...is the best way to go. Relatively easy to de-age with CGI and to age with actual make-up. While I don't think Viggo's quite right (again, the voice), I think he's a good freference point in that he played a character for whom age didn't mean the same thing it does to guys like us. Aaragorn was in his 80s during the Rings films, but Viggo is in his forties. I see Roland aging similarly (i.e. not necessarily showing his age until the arthritis starts to twist him up in Wolves).

I am unsure about this news<P>But the best way to get around possible bad casting and bad CGI is to animate it just like the Spawn animated series. Also gets around the problem of ageing characters . .like Jake.

Animation ... ahh. I'm very resistant to The Dark Tower being an animated film ... the comic book's the closest I want to see something that we've all imagined as flesh and blood to a two-dimensional state.

And it's not just because I don't think he's quite physically right for the part. As someone else touched on, the way he carries himself is just far too laconic and easy-going. I don't get "tortured" and "single-minded" from him, two qualities that Roland definitely flashes at times. And just like how I'd feel about a Clint casting, there's too much "baggage." Viggo is already so strongly identified with another iconic warrior/leader/loner type of character in a very popular pop culture mythos that it would undermine the Roland character right from the get-go to cast him.......... As far as the Hugh Laurie suggestion, well, I've got to admit, that's actually pretty intriguing.

I will wait to be blasted, and yes he might be a bit young. But cut his hair, leave him scruffy and unshaved, and take away any ironic humor from the man, and maybe, just maybe you could make it work, I have seen stranger casting that worked out. Hell King has been all over Lost, maybe for another reason, maybe he's been looking for Roland. Okay, so maybe not, but how about Locke for Martin or even Roland. The dude has that kind smile, but if he wants to be bizzare and evil, he could do it.

Alright, I have to say that before today I was firmly in the Viggo-as-Roland camp. And while I understand those who would say that the way Viggo carries himself is far too laid-back to play Roland...well, I have to respectfully disagree. In most cases the way an actor carries himself is the way he shows up onscreen, but Viggo is simply a fucking chameleon. I think he could destroy as Roland, and I think he would leave everyone without a shred of doubt as to just who Roland was.
<br>
<br>
Other suggestions I can't get into. I LOVE the idea of Hugh Laurie...but probably 10-15 years ago. He would have been incredible but now he's simply too old. Eastwood is too powerful and, again, too old, but he definitely has the right iconic look. I think if this doesn't get made for ten years Guy Pierce is a great choice. The Christian Bale idea I hate personally - he's far too young, too good-looking, too built into another franchise and, though he can be demonstrative when he wants to be and is an actor I'm really impressed with, I just don't think he's grizzled enough to take this on. Patrick Bateman as Roland? Can't see it. Just can't.
<br>
<br>
I haven't read through all the posts, but whoever suggested Daniel Day-Lewis...well, sir, you've blown my mind. Hat's off to you. That is perfect casting. Perfect. I shall now put Viggo aside and jump readily onto this wagon. With fervor.
<br>
<br>
By the way, since we're talking about casting and star power and whatnot, here's a direct quote from this month's PLAYBOY in case anyone didn't see it:
<br>
<br>
"By turning down the role of Gandalf in the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy and the 10% to 15% cut of worldwide box office receipts New Line Cinema offered him up front, Sean Connery passed up between $290 million and $435 million." THAT, my friends, is some food for thought.

The more I think of it, the more I believe that Laurie would make a great Roland. I honestly think he has the acting chops to come across as bad-ass. But also, he is someone who just exudes fierce intelligence. (I don't believe Kind ever outright describes Roland in this way, but through his actions, I can't think of Roland in any other way than fiercely intelligent.) Roland also had a sort of self-aware ironic quality about him, where he could surprise the various members of his Ka-tet by cracking wise once in a while, flashing a sense of humor drier than the Sahara. And obviously Hugh Laurie could do that too. I admit, even though earlier I was pushing for a time-ravaged version of Christian Bale--Bale can come across as, well, a bit of a lummox. And I don't think he'd pull off the occasional flashes of "dry-irony hiding beneath-the-surface" aspect nearly as well, either.

I don't think Hugh Laurie is too old at all. Remember, Roland himself is probably at *least* in his 50's, and Laurie is only like 48. I think he's actually the perfect age. His appearance is "weathered" enough where we could plausibly buy that this guy has lived through a lifetime of epic experiences, but he's also still young enough to be plausibly bad-ass and vital. (And to be more blunt, marketable as well.).... And I was the guy who suggested Christian Bale earlier. And you're absolutely right, he is too young. (In my defense though, I was only pitching Bale, if he could magically be about 20 years older.)

...man, you've got to look behind the type-casting. Laurie's got some sharp acting chops. This isn't Leslie Nielson we're talking about....... And if they were doing a Dark Tower spoof, that's what would automatically happen if they cast Eastwood. (No offense to those in the Eastwood camp.)

Let me clarify a little bit, because I think you made a lot of good points:
<br>
<br>
First of all, Hugh Laurie is a TREMENDOUS actor and talent I don't think for a second that he couldn't totally pull off the attitude of the role. And you're right, he's only 48, which puts him at ABOUT Roland's age. However, I've had the good luck to meet Hugh Laurie and, being around him...he LOOKS more like he's 58. Not only that, but he's sort of a gangly guy, about 6'4" and probably less than 200lbs. He's got the right face, but in my estimation he just doesn't add up physically. And I personally think that this is one of those roles where the physicality of the main character is an intrinsic part of the whole package. This isn't to say that it's a 100% guarantee that it couldn't work - I just don't think it would be right. On the other hand, I have to agree with you that, with the success of HOUSE, the marketing might be right. Still, though, I can't get over the fact that he's just too old-looking for me.
<br>
<br>
For my money, it's DDL, who's actually two years older but looks ten years younger than Laurie with the same scraped-up features. You know what, though? If it takes them 20 years to make this movie an Bale is far-removed enough from BATMAN and beat-up enough, he'd make a great Roland and I wouldn't be too disappointed to wait for it.

That's something else. Here's the description IMDbPro uses:
<br>
<br>
"Medical drama based on the lives of cancer patience (spelled incorrectly - are you fucking kidding me, IMDb?). Based on Jerome Groopman's "The Anatomy of Hope: How People Prevail in the Face of Illness."
<br>
<br>
So that's not it. HOWEVER, I found something very interesting. If you go to StudioSystem they're listing THE DARK TOWER as a new Bad Robot film project. However, the site is down at the moment and I can't get in; as soon as I can log in I'll get the information up here.

From studiosystem.com:
<br>
<br>
Synopsis: The tale of gunslinger Roland Deschain's quest for the "Dark Tower."
<br>
<br>
Notes: Based on the series that began with "The Dark Tower I: The Gunslinger" written by Stephen King and published by Donald M. Grant in 1982. Project may be done as feature film or television series.
<br>
<br>
All of this information was loaded onto the website today. Um...um...I don't want to buy this needlessly and get excited, but I'm starting to buy this. StudioSystem is even more efficient and reliable than IMDb. Oh God.

You know, as invested as I've been in this debate about who would play the best Roland-- I have to say, I really don't want this to happen, no matter who plays him. Over the years I've seen a billion various fanboys complaining about how so-and-so "raped their childhood" and how a certain adaptation totally ruined something very dear to them. For the most part, I couldn't relate. Yeah, the Star Wars prequels were a real let-down, but their mediocrity never really hit me where I live..... The silver surfer looking too silver? Doctor Doom? The Punisher? Organic web-shooters on Spiderman? Flames on Optimus? Heck, I barely know who half those characters are, let alone care how they are portrayed..... But Roland, the Gunslinger, that's another story. For my money, he is the coolest most bad-ass anti-hero to emerge since the dawn of story-telling. King's detailing of his quest and the universe(s) he inhabits have been the most immersive and "deep" mythology I have personally been "a part" of. And as the anouncement of this adaptation becomes official, I cringe. This will end in tears, mark my words.

According to Bev Vincent, "King's response via his Message Board Moderator is that they are talking but nothing has been agreed upon at this point." So King & Abrams are in talks, but it sounds like that's it's as far as it goes right now.

Here's one thing that pisses me off about an adaptation...I have three friends who I've tried to get to read the books over the years. They've picked up book one and just put it down. "It's a western!" "I don't get it!" "It's boring" I've heard all the excuses. But the most frustrating thing is I heard them say if there's an adaptation they'll definitely watch it. Really...what's wrong with people? Is it me? --G

I am also a huge Dark Tower fan, started reading in middle/high school. Sadly, I've only made it to the 4th book: Wizard and Glass. I really need to get back into it and finish them off, and I too have dreamed of a visual adaptation but never thought it could be done justice unless it was animated. Now, as a huge fan of Lost, I think that Abrams could pull it off. I'm not going to get excited yet though. And I agree... only HBO can do this series justice!

Lost has a premise with tons of creative promise and colorful characters, and it also provides no remotely satisfying conclusions or explanations, just like every King book I ever read before I gave up on his crap.

What awful news. No matter how talented JJ Abrams is, no one will be able to do this series justice. As one of the thousands who love this series, I've always taken comfort that King has steadfastly said he won't allow a film or TV adaptation. Because he knows (or at least I thought) that this is a book that THRIVES in our imagination, that each of us have our own versions of Roland, Eddie, Susannah, Oy, Jake, Lud, Blaine, The Tower, Flagg...the list goes on. And my version of the DT series is just as wonderful as yours or the next person. I always thought King knew this...he has said this series has engendered more response from his fans than any other. This is because they care deeply about these books, because for many of us, the books have coincided with your growing up, as we started reading this books in our childhood (early teens in my case) and into our late 20s and 30s.
Hopefully the folks at Bad Robot will read this and other comments, and not proceed with this. Sadly, it seems like wherever a buck is to made, promises fall. I thought King would always keep to his word to not make this series into tv or film, but in this day and age, I guess we should all know better than to believe people's promises.
Yes, JJ is talented, and there's no doubt he'll bring the best people available to this. But it will never be enough.
If this is true, it makes me very sad, because something that was so special to me and thousands of people will now be considerably less so.

I don't know, man. DDL looks like he's got a lot of miles on him and, at least last time I sayw him, was thinner than a supermodel. I'm not saying DDL couldn't do Roland. In fact, I think he's a great choice, but he doesn't have any distinct advantage over Laurie in my mind other than hair color. Man, I'm excited about this.

I know it will never happen since Alec seems (rightfully) quite content to be a character actor - but I think if he slimmed down he'd be spot-on perfect. The tricky bit would be casting young Roland for Wizard and Glass. Oh, and although I thought the series peaked with The Drawing of the Three, I enjoyed all the books, especially The Dark Tower and its PERFECT ending. Ka, bitches.

I always thought a young, less fat Daniel Baldwin would have been a good Eddie. Now I don't know if he could have the gravitas for the role but with a great cast around him, I always thought he would be a good fit...
And Yes, I realize I just advocated Daniel Baldwin for the role of Eddie

I think Bloom made many similar comments about King's books without having read them either. While I've always felt some of King's books have had their ups and downs, I've thought that King's first six or so books were complete hits out of the ballpark....DEADZONE, CARRIE, THE SHINING, SALEM'S LOT, THE STAND...You can't beat these books. Great plots. Great characters. Great themes and satisfying from beginning to END. --G

...you're right about his earlier career. King wrote some very solid early novels. And his short stories pretty much all end spectacularly (not as in full of spectacle, but as in absolutely appropriately for the story). His longer, later works become a bit more disjointed not just in their endings but pretty much in their entire third acts. Needful Things, with the introduction of the Gaunt thing is a good (bad) example. Insomnia and Rose Madder are two more (although I enjoyed the earlier parts of both books immensely). Tommyknockers. Even the Stand took the Mark Twain emergency escape hatch (that is, the most convenient and implausible ending possible) at the end. There are more. That's not to say he can't end a longer story well (It! had multiple, excellent endings, and I would cite both The Dead Zone and Misery as two of his better-ended novels), but a fair number of his endings are unsatisfying in comparison to what preceded them. The Dark Tower saga is a prime example of this phenomenon (as well as King's strengths as a writer, which are many). You've got to take the good and the bad. Take them both, and there you have...the facts of King.

there are tons of possibilities for this series. Although it pains my asshole that there's either a lack of good original written material that can spawn this type of creative storytelling - or a lack of balls from studios to take a chance on new material, i do savor the fact that King's material still gets nods for projects. they ought to approach this like others have suggested, different helmers for each story, using multiple mediums. it would be a like Lost meets Twin Peaks meets Animatrix meets The Hire series. this way plot points and characters have a better chance of surviving the axe.

What specifically was so bad about it? I thought it was a great adaptation. Of course some things got cut, but only minor things. The 7 hour miniseries did a great job of capturing the feeling of the book, the characters, the nationwide epidemic, and the overall story. It also had great music and visual effects.

Two things didn't work for me ...
<br><br>
Rob Lowe and that TV feeling. TV shows, with their inevitable cuts for commercial breaks and less-than desirable direction and cinematography, just feel disjointed by nature. I've seen very few miniseries that feel solid ... and in fact, I can't name one off the top of my head. Let's compare the two Shinings, even though they were different takes on the same story ... let's just compare the dynamics of the movie.
<br><br>
The acting, costume design, direction, scoring, everything ... was better in the big screen version. One of the biggest problems I have with TV miniseries is that they sometimes feel cheap ... now with "Lost," I feel a substantial quality that I haven't felt with most shows or series, and that's why I'm more than willing to give ol' JJ a try. I also liked MI:III, for the record, though ... so that may completely discount my opinion here. And I think MI:III is one of the least robotic performances Tom Cruise has ever given, so I credit the director. Peace.

I see where you're coming from, but I have to disagree - I still think DDL looks younger than Laurie, even if you color up the hair. Plus, as I mentioned, Laurie just doesn't have the right physique. I have no reason to believe that DDL can't get back into similar (albeit older and wrinklier) shape as he was in LAST OF THE MOHICANS. It's that idea that drives me to my conclusion. Laurie, God bless him, just looks a little awkward to me - and not just because of his limp on HOUSE.

I'll never understand the cries of, "NO!!!! PLEASE DON'T MAKE THIS AND RUIN IT!!!!!!!"
<br>
<br>
What exactly is it about someone adapting a book or filming a remake that boils you up so much? Here's a little fact: if you have even a smidgen of mental resolve, there won't be anything about an adaptation of THE DARK TOWER that, if you hate it, should make you forget how much you love the books or tarnish their impact on you. To piggyback that, here's an idea: if you're so weak as to assume that a film adaptation really WILL destroy your psyche, don't see the goddamned thing.
<br>
<br>
I remember being horrified when I found out that some awful people are planning a remake of ADVENTURES IN BABYSITTING with Raven Symone in the role formerly occupied by my Forever Wife Elisabeth Shue, but it was a quick fit of anger quelled by me simply thinking, "Thank God I don't have to see it." Even if I did...I wouldn't like the original any less. Hell, one of my favorite books as a kid was THE INDIAN IN TE CUPBOARD, and then the movie came out and fucking blew dog...and guess what? I still have pretty fond memories of the book.
<br>
<br>
You people are like those damn dirty Swedes. I just don't understand you. You're either mildly retarded or of such weak constitution that you're afraid to think for yourself. Just like those Swedes.

That is all. Shooter's eyes. Cold stare. Weathered face. Hack off a few fingers and voila... Craig. Although I always saw Roland as a slimmer guy, darker hair, curling smile... I dunno. I would like to see this series come to life.
But big time. On the big screen. With big effects, big budget... You know, the 'woiks'. I guess we'll see.

I agree ... Craig impressed the shit out of me with his work on Road to Perdition, Archangel, and Layer Cake. I haven't seen the new Bond yet, but I hear it's the cat's meow.
<br><br>
One thing I think Craig has going for him is that he seems like a pretty humorless dude. And whoever plays Eddie really needs a humorless dude like Craig to play off of.

Firstly, why is everyone coming up with a massive A list cast for this in the same breath as saying it should be on HBO? Does anyone really think that any of these 'name'actors (Bale, Jackman, Craig etc) will dedicate what is potentially three years of their lives to a TV show? Secondly, if these are made into movies, we are looking at a massive franchise which will take at least five years of intensive work to bring to the screen (and that is only if this is shrunk to a trilogy). Why would Bale sign up for that long at the expense of the Batman franchise? Why would Daniel Craig sign for that long at the expense of Bond? These guys don't want to get bogged down playing two characters for the next half decade. Even Hugh Laurie is unrealistic with the massive workload going into House. As a result the most realistic choice to play Roland is Day-Lewis. He hasn't had a massive workload recently so he could commit to this as a movie series, and probably isn't such a huge star at the moment that he couldnt commit to a TV mini series either. Although, as an Aussie, my choice would be Guy Pearce. I agree wholeheartedly with those that say they saw Roland in his character in the Proposition.

Roland-Russel Crowe, Eddie-Mark Wahlberg, Susannah-Thandie Newton, Cort-Eastwood, Jack Mort-Sam Rockwell TickTock-Ian McShane Jake-Who Knows?
If it is to be done now as opposed to in ten years, these would be my first choices. I would also say pay cable or theatrical only. Ten eps. or three movies would be fine with me. If anybody's still reading, this is my first post ever. Peace

Clancy Brown is Roland for me, he may not quite look right but I think he would just be able to play the part.He`s about the right age,height and could certainly do the voice,although I do quite like the idea of Hugh Laurie.

Gina Torres as Susannah Dean, Rik Mayall as Dandelo, Tiffany Mulheron as Susan Delgado, Christopher Lloyd as Father Callahan, Billy West as the voice of Blaine, David Hewlett as the man in black, David Hyde Pierce as the pusher.

Here's why Viggo would be good. Think of his role in Hidalgo, add the depth of Roland's character. I think his experience with (foreign?) languages in LOTR would give that extra edge of the Gunslinger vernacular.
Ed Norton is PERFECT for Eddie Dean (Wish I'd have thought of it.)
I always pictured Angela Bassett as Susannah but she's probably too old now.
Jake should be an unknown.
Cort should be either a (more heavyset) Michael Ironside or Clint Eastwood as an omage. He's too old to play Roland's dad, too bad. Kurt Russell - Steven Deschain.
Dennis Hopper/or hey, Adam Corrola (halfJK) -Blaine's Voice
Kevin Spacey could be a creepy Walter.
Let's say....Andy Serkis as Oy (JK)